"A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
unscheduled disassembly' ".

Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
of pieces.

Ah, the power of words.
--
Davey.

On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>
> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
> of pieces.
>
> Ah, the power of words.

Perhaps he should have had a few more goes at launching it in Kerbal
Space Program 2 before trying the real thing.

--
Colin Bignell

Davey wrote:

> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>
> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
> of pieces.
>
> Ah, the power of words.

I think they were pretty much expecting that, Musk said a few weeks back
that the criteria for success was clearing the tower.

The spaceX people all booed when the countdown was paused at about T-40s
and cheered wildly when it eventually blew up having spun round a few
times after not separating.

On 4/20/2023 2:32 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Davey wrote:
>
>> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
>> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>>
>> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
>> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
>> of pieces.
>>
>> Ah, the power of words.
>
> I think they were pretty much expecting that, Musk said a few weeks back that the criteria for success was clearing the tower.
>
> The spaceX people all booed when the countdown was paused at about T-40s and cheered wildly when it eventually blew up having spun round a few times after not separating.
>

Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
from the same facility for the next one, some construction
work is in order.

It's a good thing it cleared the pad. That's the "achievement".

It might have been blown by range-safety.

Paul

Paul wrote:

> Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
> from the same facility for the next one, some construction
> work is in order.

Here's what it did on the ground ...

<https://youtu.be/thA8jlgcJ-8>

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:44:27 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/20/2023 2:32 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Davey wrote:
>>
>>> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
>>> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>>>
>>> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
>>> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
>>> of pieces.
>>>
>>> Ah, the power of words.
>>
>> I think they were pretty much expecting that, Musk said a few weeks back that the criteria for success was clearing the tower.
>>
>> The spaceX people all booed when the countdown was paused at about T-40s and cheered wildly when it eventually blew up having spun round a few times after not separating.
>>
>
>Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
>from the same facility for the next one, some construction
>work is in order.
>
>It's a good thing it cleared the pad. That's the "achievement".
>
>It might have been blown by range-safety.

My thought also.

I noticed at one point after lift-off they showed a view of the rocket
engines firing. It's also here, about 25 seconds in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vta1rueCMW0
The rocket is supposed to have 33 engines, but the are several that
don't appear to be firing in that view. I wonder if that caused an
uneven distribution of thrust that eventually caused the whole thing
to start tumbling, at which point someone pressed the destruct button.

--
Chris

Chris Hogg wrote:

> The rocket is supposed to have 33 engines, but the are several that
> don't appear to be firing in that view. I wonder if that caused an
> uneven distribution of thrust that eventually caused the whole thing
> to start tumbling, at which point someone pressed the destruct button.

Possibly, though the whole thing was supposed to flip over before
separation and stage2 ignition ...

On 20/04/2023 20:19, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:44:27 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2023 2:32 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Davey wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
>>>> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>>>>
>>>> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
>>>> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
>>>> of pieces.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the power of words.
>>>
>>> I think they were pretty much expecting that, Musk said a few weeks back that the criteria for success was clearing the tower.
>>>
>>> The spaceX people all booed when the countdown was paused at about T-40s and cheered wildly when it eventually blew up having spun round a few times after not separating.
>>>
>>
>> Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
>>from the same facility for the next one, some construction
>> work is in order.
>>
>> It's a good thing it cleared the pad. That's the "achievement".
>>
>> It might have been blown by range-safety.
>
> My thought also.
>
> I noticed at one point after lift-off they showed a view of the rocket
> engines firing. It's also here, about 25 seconds in
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vta1rueCMW0
> The rocket is supposed to have 33 engines, but the are several that
> don't appear to be firing in that view. I wonder if that caused an
> uneven distribution of thrust that eventually caused the whole thing
> to start tumbling, at which point someone pressed the destruct button.

The degree of gimballing on those engines should be able to overcome a
number of failed engines before tumbling.

On 20/04/2023 20:00, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
>> from the same facility for the next one, some construction
>> work is in order.
>
> Here's what it did on the ground ...
>
> <https://youtu.be/thA8jlgcJ-8>
>

I don't recall the Saturn V launches doing that. Lots of flame directed
out the side of the platform, but not huge dust clouds.

--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:44:27 -0400
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 4/20/2023 2:32 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> > Davey wrote:
> >
> >> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a
> >> 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' ".
> >>
> >> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that
> >> it's good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in
> >> thousands of pieces.
> >>
> >> Ah, the power of words.
> >
> > I think they were pretty much expecting that, Musk said a few weeks
> > back that the criteria for success was clearing the tower.
> >
> > The spaceX people all booed when the countdown was paused at about
> > T-40s and cheered wildly when it eventually blew up having spun
> > round a few times after not separating.
>
> Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
> from the same facility for the next one, some construction
> work is in order.
>
> It's a good thing it cleared the pad. That's the "achievement".
>
> It might have been blown by range-safety.
>
> Paul

Yes, it was some kind of auto self-destruct mechanism. At least that
worked!
--
Davyey.

Fredxx wrote:

> The degree of gimballing on those engines should be able to overcome a
> number of failed engines before tumbling.

Aren't most of them fixed, and just a few can be gimballed?

<google>
yes the outer ring of 20 are fixed, the inner 13 can gimbal, which does
sound like it should have a lot of manoeuvrability ...

Colin Bignell wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> <https://youtu.be/thA8jlgcJ-8>
>
> I don't recall the Saturn V launches doing that. Lots of flame directed
> out the side of the platform, but not huge dust clouds.

But saturnV launches above a huge flame trench with millions of gallons
of water being dumped into it, I presume boca chica is just a concrete
pad with mostly beach and sand dunes around it?

On 20/04/2023 23:01, Andy Burns wrote:
> Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> <https://youtu.be/thA8jlgcJ-8>
>>
>> I don't recall the Saturn V launches doing that. Lots of flame
>> directed out the side of the platform, but not huge dust clouds.
>
> But saturnV launches above a huge flame trench with millions of gallons
> of water being dumped into it, I presume boca chica is just a concrete
> pad with mostly beach and sand dunes around it?

I think that the NASA way worked better.

--
Colin Bignell

On 20/04/2023 23:38, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 20/04/2023 23:01, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://youtu.be/thA8jlgcJ-8>
>>>
>>> I don't recall the Saturn V launches doing that. Lots of flame
>>> directed out the side of the platform, but not huge dust clouds.
>>
>> But saturnV launches above a huge flame trench with millions of
>> gallons of water being dumped into it, I presume boca chica is just a
>> concrete pad with mostly beach and sand dunes around it?
>
> I think that the NASA way worked better.

There were less visible failures but the outdated cost-plus style of
funding was expensive. Also engine failures weren't publicised. By way
of example you can check why baffles were placed in Stage 1 engines.

On 4/20/2023 5:56 PM, Davey wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 14:44:27 -0400
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2023 2:32 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Davey wrote:
>>>
>>>> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a
>>>> 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' ".
>>>>
>>>> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that
>>>> it's good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in
>>>> thousands of pieces.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the power of words.
>>>
>>> I think they were pretty much expecting that, Musk said a few weeks
>>> back that the criteria for success was clearing the tower.
>>>
>>> The spaceX people all booed when the countdown was paused at about
>>> T-40s and cheered wildly when it eventually blew up having spun
>>> round a few times after not separating.
>>
>> Apparently the thrust left a crater, so if they launch
>> from the same facility for the next one, some construction
>> work is in order.
>>
>> It's a good thing it cleared the pad. That's the "achievement".
>>
>> It might have been blown by range-safety.
>
> Yes, it was some kind of auto self-destruct mechanism. At least that
> worked!
>

It's a good way to get rid of old engine parts,
without paying a tipping fee.

"as many as eight engines appeared to have gone out"

Something was gnawing at the vitals as the ship was rising.
There may not have been enough redundancy left for the next
maneuver.

The gimbal system used to be hydraulic, but it switched to
electric. This version of ship may well have had the old
hydraulic gimbal, and there was a hydraulic problem, It's
quite possible something was on fire on the way up, burned
through some hydraulic kit, and so on.

I consider the whole thing a success, because now they have
proof they need a flame trench. And none of the infrastructure
got ruined by a giant explosion. The whole thing is a "time saver" :-)

Paul

On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>
> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
> of pieces.
>
> Ah, the power of words.
like that useless virgin wummin who tried to spin that failure was a
success....sacked

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 07:43:50 +0100, jim.gm4dhj wrote:

> On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
>> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
>> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>>
>> Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
>> good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
>> of pieces.
>>
>> Ah, the power of words.
> like that useless virgin wummin who tried to spin that failure was a
> success....sacked

Never seen a virgin wummin....all used.

On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
> it blew itself to smithereens

It didn't.

It was deliberately destroyed by a dude NASA would call the "range
safety officer" once it was clear it wasn't going to separate. There's a
difference between it blowing up and it being blown up even if end
result is the same.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 19:15:43 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid>
wrote:

>"A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
>unscheduled disassembly' ".
>
>Or, in other words, it blew itself to smithereens. I suppose that it's
>good to look on the bright side, though, even though it's in thousands
>of pieces.
>
>Ah, the power of words.

Well, it beats my DIY efforts in the 1950's with a cigar tube packed
with sodium-chlorate-impregnated tissue paper and balsa fins attached
with Durofix! Toppled over on the launch pad and burnt/melted into a
little heap of fused ash, IIRC!

--
Chris

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 09:12:10 +0100
mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:

> On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
> > it blew itself to smithereens
>
> It didn't.
>
> It was deliberately destroyed by a dude NASA would call the "range
> safety officer" once it was clear it wasn't going to separate.
> There's a difference between it blowing up and it being blown up even
> if end result is the same.

Oh, ok. One of the reports says that it was an automatic
sensing system that caused it to self-destruct.

Quote: "The rocket reached a height of around 25 miles above the earth,
before self-destructing after its automated flight termination system
activated."

--
Davey.

Davey wrote:

> Quote: "The rocket reached a height of around 25 miles above the earth,
> before self-destructing after its automated flight termination system
> activated."

I'm sure they'd have been delighted if it'd flipped then separated, but
neither stage was due to land and be re-used yesterday.

On 20/04/2023 23:38, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 20/04/2023 23:01, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> <https://youtu.be/thA8jlgcJ-8>
>>>
>>> I don't recall the Saturn V launches doing that. Lots of flame
>>> directed out the side of the platform, but not huge dust clouds.
>>
>> But saturnV launches above a huge flame trench with millions of
>> gallons of water being dumped into it, I presume boca chica is just a
>> concrete pad with mostly beach and sand dunes around it?
>
> I think that the NASA way worked better.
>
Probably at 100 times the price though

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 21/04/2023 14:09, Davey wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 13:43:55 +0100
> mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2023 11:33, Davey wrote:
>>> Oh, ok. One of the reports says that it was an automatic
>>> sensing system that caused it to self-destruct
>>
>> I've been in the software business for 41 years. I'd want there to be
>> something manual still in the automatic self-destruct loop. Just
>> saying....
>>
>>
>
> Well, there could easily be a manual parallel operator, ie if the auto.
> system doesn't fire, then the man on the ground could do it instead.
> Or do you want a manual 'Don't Fire!' option, to prevent auto action?
> and if so, how fast would the man's reactions need to be?
> 'Discuss', as they used to say in school.
>

You're in the spaceship... so do you want a fully automatic destruct
system based on your experiences with computers over the last decades?

There you've answered your own question.

On 21/04/2023 14:14, RDS wrote:
> On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
>> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
>> unscheduled disassembly' ".
>>
> Is that a posh term for pingfuckit?
>

He's taking piss out of NASA who are famous for such expressions.

mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 21/04/2023 14:14, RDS wrote:
> > On 20/04/2023 19:15, Davey wrote:
> >> "A SpaceX engineering manager, said the rocket had suffered a 'rapid
> >> unscheduled disassembly' ".
> >>
> > Is that a posh term for pingfuckit?
> >
>
> He's taking piss out of NASA who are famous for such expressions.

That is the official term, along with others like 'lithobraking'.